Englebert

It's impossible or incredibly difficult to pin it on Obama since Obama sealed the Fast And Furious documents using executive privilege...similar to firing the prosecuting attorney. Where was the outrage then?

The evidence the author uses to conclude that Trump is stupid shows his incredible bias, and frankly his own stupidity. One viewing of "The Big Bang Theory" illustrates that incredibly smart people, geniuses, are subject to hilarious faux pas and naivety on many subjects. To focus on these as evidence of Trump's incompetency as president leads me to conclude I never want to read another article from that incompetent author.

Where did someone do that? I certainly did not. The contention was that Mars' climate is changing, but Man is not present. The moral being that climate changes naturally, and is not necessitated on Man's involvement, contrary to what the religion of Climate Change nut-cases are demanding us believe...without any proof.

What are you basing your opinion on? Could it be "D" or "R"?

How's that tin foil hat fit on your head. Do you have it straight or askew? And when you calm down from your searing hatred of White people, please provide some evidence of your wild theory. I would love nothing better than to discuss why you have come to this conclusion, and would love for you to back up your statements. When you make the statement "that is what they want to believe", I have no problem calling you a bigot and scourge on society that lets racism fester in an otherwise civil society. If you want to speculate on why racism won't die, you just provided the prime example.

Thank you for acknowledging that Republicans look at policies versus skin color. What's sad is I highly doubt you even realize your admittance.

For some reason I expect a little more out of people who throw out unsubstantiated and blatantly false accusations, runs and hides when called out...only to return spouting the same old shameful rhetoric full of hate. I do like the cat quips and the kindergarten one-liner insults...makes me think of the good old days when the biggest worry in the world was what was for dinner.

He always does. I think we should call Guiness Book of World Records because he must be well over 100 years old. All of his racial topics are from that long ago. His mind must have started failing him in the sixties because he doesn't seem to recall the United States passing Civil Rights laws, creating Affirmation Action laws, spending trillions of dollars on social welfare programs aimed specifically to minorities, establishing Minority Outreach programs in practically every sector of society (public and private), etc.

I never bring race into the situation, I just follow your lead. We all know it. You are the only one on here that is totally oblivious to your failed thought processes, but still think you are superior with moral authority. That's why we are constantly laughing at you.

So what makes you think this article "doesn't even say what you seem to think it says"? This whole topic was about "climate change" on Mars, and your quote basically says exactly that. So what did we miss? Or what did you miss?

Please enlighten us peons as to what you think it says. You prefaced your remark with a "lol", which can only be in this context a signature of derision. So please explain your heightened sense of intelligence so we can bask in your greatness. But keep in mind, we have the ability to critique your response, and I'm sure we will be able to articulate more than a "lol" in our analysis.

No you wouldn't. You have already stated that your co-workers are racist. That's the only White people you know. Now I will sit back for the wait for the inevitable "I know you are, but what am I". You might as well try the old cat fail again. I'm still laughing at that one.

Again, your comprehension skills are just non-existent.

Now this is funny. You are on here as much as me, but try to insult me about the time I spend on here. The 1st graders are getting a good chuckle now.

Well at least you admitted someone has to read it to you. Admitting it is half the battle. A little bit more work and you can join the adult world. (Well, I don't want to get too carried away.)

Who is this directed at? Better yet, what does it even mean? And what happen to you naming someone on this board that "doesn't want to help anyone"? After all, you threw out the accusation? Is your strategy to insult everyone then throw out some plagiarized childish one-liners?

I see you found the "Big Book Of Kindergarten Insults". Who's reading it to you?

And I'm suppose to even recognize your comprehension skills. You've shown them to be highly deficient, and your retorts don't even reach 1st grade level. That must be some blinding hate distorting you view of reality. What's incredible is how you can twist and turn it into something you think is admirable, while trying (laughably) to admonish every poster on this board. Sometimes you just need to stop and listen for the laughter.

Can you name a single person on this board who does not believe in helping anyone? That is a pathetic statement, a blatant lie, and you know it. Trump would have to work night and day trying to compete with you in the lying category. Everyone on this board has made it crystal clear that they think the Federal systems are ripe with fraud and abuse, even you. But somehow you do your little mental gymnastics to interpret that as "some on this board does not believe in helping anyone". How you can strain yourself so badly to twist simple statements into what you want to hear is incomprehensible to me. You must be incredibly tired writhing in that sea of hate.

Entergy should be able to charge what they want. Then a competitor can swoop in, undercut their prices, and either drive Entergy's prices down or put Entergy out of business. It is a simple concept called Capitalism.

Do you have any clue as to how much money was spent on R&D and manufacturing costs to make that drug? Do you think pharmaceutical companies should work for free, or even take huge losses so that everyone can have access to a product that they developed? Do you think investors would continue to invest in companies that do not show a profit? And when investors quit investing, do you think pharmaceutical companies will continue to spend money they don't have? And when pharmaceutical companies go out of business, who will make the life-saving drugs? You haven't put much thought into your rationale have you.

Did you skip the ethnicity question on the questionnaire? Why is that question on there? What business is it of the government to require that question? The last time I filled out the background check questionnaire I checked all seven ethnicities. The guy told me it would be rejected if I picked more than three, but it went through.

Wow, after the embarrassment six burg went through with his cat fail, you want to jump on that folly? Luckily the 1st graders are getting their laugh today. It's not often kids that young get to witness adults acting more immature than them. I bet you have a bald spot on the top of your head where people pat you when saying "bless his little heart".

My whole question is still being ignored. So I'll try again. What questions need to be added to background checks or mental competency checks that would help determine who is a future risk for gun violence. I hear this rhetoric constantly that we need more and better background checks and to close the loop-holes. Okay, make some suggestions on what would help determine the competency of a (potential) gun-owner. I've asked this question numerous times, and have yet to get any kind of suggestions on what would make competency checks better. The Liberals nut-cases have already offered a few suggestions. One Congressman has tried to introduce a bill that would ban gun ownership from anyone going through a divorce. Dianne Feinstein has proposed banning guns from all military veterans. She has also tried to ban all guns that have a barrel shroud attached. Do these people seem competent enough to enact laws designed to curb gun ownership. Once background checks become mandatory, more and more of the nut-cases will get so many restrictions passed that even the Pope would not qualify to own a gun. Another point of emphasis is who should pay for these background checks and the privilege to own a gun. I read about places like Chicago that charge exorberent yearly fees just to exercise your right to own a gun. Lawmakers will undeniably use this avenue to curtail gun ownership, to the point that only the top 1% can afford to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. It's already happening. So when contemplating on what needs to be done to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys, don't forget to look long and hard about how our lawmakers will skew and distort sane laws and inject insane laws/regulations just to achieve their goal of total gun bans (except for their own private security of course).

I'm not trying to intimidate you at all. Your interpretation skills are in need of a serious overhaul.